+1 Recommend
1 collections

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journalsFurthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Data sharing policies in scholarly publications: interdisciplinary comparisons

      Pluto Journals


            Digital sharing of research data is becoming an important research integrity norm. Data sharing is promoted in different avenues, one being the scholarly publication process: journals serve as gatekeepers, recommending or mandating data sharing as a condition for publication. While there is now a sizeable corpus of research assessing the pervasiveness and efficacy of journal data sharing policies in various disciplines, available research is largely piecemeal and mitigates against meaningful comparisons across disciplines. A major contribution of the present research is that it makes direct across-discipline comparisons employing a common methodology. The paper opens with a discussion of the arguments aired in favour and against data sharing (with an emphasis on ethical issues, which stand behind these policies). The websites of 150 journals, drawn from 15 disciplines, were examined for information on data sharing. The results consolidate the notion of the primacy of biomedical sciences in the implementation of data sharing norms and the lagging implementation in the arts and humanities. More surprisingly, they attest to similar levels of norms adoption in the physical and social sciences. The results point to the overlooked status of the formal sciences, which demonstrate low levels of data sharing implementation. The study also examines the policies of the major journal publishers. The paper concludes with a presentation of the current preferences for different data sharing solutions in different fields, in specialized repositories, general repositories, or publishers' hosting area.


            Author and article information

            Pluto Journals
            1 June 2020
            : 36
            : 2 ( doiID: 10.13169/prometheus.36.issue-2 )
            : 116-134
            Consultant, 17 Begin Street, Givat-Shmuel, Israel
            Economics Department, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
            © 2020 Pluto Journals

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            Custom metadata

            Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics


            1. Alsheikh-Ali, A., Qureshi, W., Al-Mallah, M. and Ioannidis, J. (2011) ‘Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals’, PloS One, 6, 9, e24357.

            2. Arzberger, P., Schroeder, P, Beaulieu, A. et al. (2004) ‘Promoting access to public research data for scientific, economic, and social development’, Data Science Journal, 3, pp.135–53.

            3. Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D. and Tani, A. (2016) ‘Are scientific data repositories coping with research data publishing?‘, Data Science Journal, 15, 6.

            4. Atici, L., Kansa, S., Lev-Tov, J. and Kansa, E. (2013) ‘Other people's data: a demonstration of the imperative of publishing primary data’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20, 4, pp.663–81.

            5. Austin, C., Brown, S., Fong, N. et al. (2015) ‘Research data repositories: review of current features, gap analysis, and recommendations for minimum requirements’ in Proceedings of IASSIST Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN, June, pp.2–5.

            6. Baker, S., Berger, J., Brady, P. et al. (2010) Data-Enabled Science in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Technical Report, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

            7. Ball, A. (2014) How to License Research Data, Digital Curation Centre, Edinburgh.

            8. Beagrie, Charles (2010) Dryad Sustainability Plan: Interview Survey Findings, available at http://wiki.datadryad.org/images/b/bf/Beagrie_suppdata_report_apr10.pdf (accessed May 2020).

            9. Bicchieri, C. and Mercier, H. (2014) ‘Norms and beliefs: how change occurs’, in Xenitidou, M. and Edmonds, B. (eds) The Complexity of Social Norms: Computational Social Sciences, Springer, Cham, pp.37–54.

            10. Bonneau, C., Kanthak, K., Berry, W. et al. (2015) ‘Data access and research transparency: a joint statement by political science journal editors’, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 15, 4, 423–4.

            11. Borgman, C. (2012) ‘The conundrum of sharing research data’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 6, pp.1059–78.

            12. Brown, C. (2003) ‘The changing face of scientific discourse: analysis of genomic and proteomic database usage and acceptance’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 10, pp.926–38.

            13. Callaghan, S. (2014) ‘Preserving the integrity of the scientific record: data citation and linking’, Learned Publishing, 27, 5, pp.15–24.

            14. Campbell, J. (2015) ‘Access to scientific data in the 21st century: rationale and illustrative usage rights review’, Data Science Journal, 13, pp.203–30.

            15. Crotty, D. (2016) ‘What price progress? The costs of an effective data publishing policy’, 13 January, available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/01/13/what-price-progress-the-costs-of-an-effective-data-publishing-policy/ (accessed May 2020).

            16. Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Gitmans, K. et al. (2012) ‘Opportunities for data exchange’, available at http://zenodo.org/record/8305#.Vw-IUfl94dU (accessed May 2020.

            17. Dataverse (2017) A Comparative Review of Various Data Repositories, 25 July, available at https://dataverse.org/blog/comparative-review-various-data-repositories (accessed May 2020).

            18. Eisenberg, R. (2006) ‘Patents and data-sharing in public science’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, 6, pp.1013–31.

            19. Elias, P. and Entwisle, B. (2013) New Data for Understanding the Human Condition: International Perspectives. Report on Data and Research Infrastructure for the Social Sciences, available at www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/new-data-for-understanding-the-human-condition.pdf (accessed May 2020).

            20. Eschenfelder, K. and Johnson, A. (2011) ‘The limits of sharing: controlled data collections’, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48, 1, pp.1–10.

            21. Eschenfelder, K. and Johnson, A. (2014) ‘Managing the data commons: controlled sharing of scholarly data’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 9, pp.1757–74.

            22. Fecher, B., Friesike, S. and Hebing, M. (2015) ‘What drives academic data sharing?‘, PloS One, 10, 2, e0118053.

            23. Harley, D., Acord, S., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S. and King, C. (2010) Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines, Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

            24. Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Birukou, A., Astell, M. et al. (2017) ‘Standardising and harmonising research data policy in scholarly publishing’, bioRxiv, 4 April, available at www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/04/04/122929.full.pdf (accessed May 2020).

            25. Hu, W-C. and Kaabouch, N. (2014) Big Data Management, Technologies, and Applications, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

            26. IFDO (2014) Policies for Sharing Research Data in Social Sciences and Humanities, available at www.cessda.eu/News-Events/News/CESSDA/IFDO-Report-2014-Policies-for-Sharing-Research-Data-in-Social-Sciences-and-Humanities (accessed May 2020).

            27. Ioannidis, J., Allison, D., Ball, C. et al. (2009) ‘Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses’, Nature Genetics, 41, 2, pp.149–55.

            28. Jasny, B. (2013) ‘Realities of data sharing using the genome wars as case study – an historical perspective and commentary’, EPJ Data Science, 2, 1, available at https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds13#citeas (accessed may 2020).

            29. Kaye, J. (2012) ‘The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research’, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 13, pp.415–31.

            30. Kuipers, T. and van der Hoeven, J. (2009) PARSE: Insight into Issues of Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe. Survey Report, European Commission, Brussels.

            31. Larivière, V., Haustein, S. and Mongeon, P. (2015) ‘The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era’, PloS One, 10, 6, e0127502.

            32. McCain, K. (1995) ‘Mandating sharing journal policies in the natural sciences’, Science Communication, 16, 4, pp.403–31.

            33. McCullough, B., McGeary, K. and Harrison, T. (2008) ‘Do economics journal archives promote replicable research?‘, Canadian Journal of Economics, 41, 4, pp.1406–20.

            34. Macfarlane, B. and Cheng, M. (2008) ‘Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton's scientific norms’, Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 1, pp.67–78.

            35. McSherry, C. (2009) Who Owns Academic Work? Battling for Control of Intellectual Property, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

            36. Mauthner, N. and Parry, O. (2013) ‘Open access digital data sharing: principles, policies and practices’, Social Epistemology, 27, 1, pp.47–67.

            37. Merton, R. (1973/1942) ‘The normative structure of science’ in Merton, R. (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp.267–78.

            38. Milia, N., Congiu, A., Anagnostou, P. et al. (2012) ‘Mine, yours, ours? Sharing data on human genetic variation’, PloS One, 7, 6, e37552.

            39. Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016) ‘The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis’, Scientometrics, 106, 1, pp.213–28.

            40. Montgomery, K. and Oliver, A. (2009) ‘Shifts in guidelines for ethical scientific conduct. How public and private organizations create and change. Norms of research integrity 1‘, Social Studies of Science, 39, 1, pp.137–55.

            41. National Research Council (1997) Bits of Power: Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

            42. Nelson, B. (2009) ‘Data sharing: empty archives’, Nature, 461, 7261, pp.160–3.

            43. NISO (2013) Recommended Practices for Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials, available at www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/10055/RP-15- (accessed May 2020).

            44. PARSE Insight (2010) Insight into Issues of Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe. Case Studies Report, European Commission, Brussels.

            45. Pienta, A., Alter, G., and Lyle, J. (2010) ‘The enduring value of social science research: the use and reuse of primary research data’, November, available at www.researchgate.net/publication/48927380_The_Enduring_Value_of_Social_Science_Research_The_Use_and_Reuse_of_Primary_Research_Data (accessed May 2010).

            46. Piwowar, H. and Chapman, W. (2008) ‘Identifying data sharing in biomedical literature’, AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp.596–600.

            47. Radder, H. (2010) ‘Mertonian values, scientific norms, and the commodification of academic research’ in Radder, H., The Commodification of Academic Research: Analyses, Assessments, Alternatives, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp.231–58.

            48. Ramin, S., and Sarraf Shirazi, A. (2012) ‘Comparison between impact factor, SCImago journal rank indicator and Eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals’, Nuclear Medicine Review. Central and Eastern Europe, 15, 2, pp.132–6.

            49. Rappert, B. and Bezuidenhout, L. (2016) ‘Data sharing in low-resourced research environments’, Prometheus, 34, 3/4, pp.207–24.

            50. Reichman, J. and Uhlir, P. (2003) ‘A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 1/2, pp.314–462.

            51. Savage, C. and Vickers, A. (2009) ‘Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals’, PloS One, 4, 9, e7078.

            52. Stephens, Z., Lee, S., Faghri, F. et al. (2015) ‘Big data: astronomical or genomical?‘, PLoS Biol, 13, 7, e1002195.

            53. Sturges, P., Bamkin, M., Anders, J. et al. (2015) ‘Research data sharing: developing a stakeholder-driven model for journal policies’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 12, pp.2445–55.

            54. Swan, A. and Brown, S. (2008) To Share or Not to Share: Publication and Quality Assurance of Research Data Outputs. Technical Report, Research Information Network, London.

            55. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K. et al. (2011) ‘Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions’, PloS One, 6, 6, e21101.

            56. Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Allard, S. et al. (2015) ‘Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide’, PloS One, 10, 8, e0134826.

            57. Unsworth, J. (2006) Our Cultural Commonwealth: The Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences, ACLS, New York.

            58. Vines, T. (2017) ‘Is there a business case for open data?‘, Scholarly Kitchen, 15 November, available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/11/15/business-case-open-data/ (accessed May 2020).

            59. Vines, T. Andrew, R. Bock, D. et al. (2013) ‘Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data’, FASEB Journal, 27, 4, pp.1304–8.

            60. Vlaeminck, S. (2013) ‘Data management in scholarly journals and possible roles for libraries – some insights from EDaWaX’, Liber Quarterly, 23, 1.

            61. Weller, T. and Monroe-Gulick, A. (2014) ‘Understanding methodological and disciplinary differences in the data practices of academic researchers’, Library Hi Tech, 32, 3, pp.467–82.

            62. Womack, R. (2015) ‘Research data in core journals in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics’, PLoS One, 10, 12, e0143460.

            63. Womack, R. (2015) ‘Research data in core journals in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics’, PLoS One, 10, 12, e0143460.

            64. Zachariah, R., Kumar, A., Reid, A. et al. (2014) ‘Open access for operational research publications from low and middle-income countries: who pays?‘, Public Health Action, 4, 3, pp.141–4.

            65. Zenk-Möltgen, W. and Lepthien, G. (2014) ‘Data sharing in sociology journals’, Online Information Review, 38, 6, pp.709–22.


            Comment on this article